HiEd Log

While interviewing for new faculty positions, I came across a young faculty interviewee who has neither attended seminars, workshops or any professional development programmes nor done any publishing. That happens occasionally. More interestingly, the person hasn't been to any college other than where the UG and PG Programmes were done by her. On asked about the reasons, it was said that her college gives all importance to students and doesn't want students to suffer because of faculty absence. That sounded a very interesting way of ensuring student support to me! The institution seems to have completely skewed it's strategies in terms of faculty professional development with the  apparent belief that eternally tying the faculty down to the campus with their constant presence is the best way of putting the students first! This 'old school' approach neither ensures the student growth nor satisfies the need for teacher growth.  Home is where you keep returning to, rat

We are at the threshold of a major overhaul of the Higher Education scene in India as the NEP unfolds and the Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP) is being slowly unveiled. In Kerala, the FYUGP will be implemented from the academic year 2024-25 in all colleges and the decision making bodies are working overtime to put a system in place. There's an equal mixture of hope and anxiety in the air. Hope bred by the changes to be ushered in with the system reboot and the expectations thereof. Anxiety stemming from the manner in which the changes may be administered. No system can be overhauled overnight and huge challenges are on the cards when a National Policy shift with seismic proportions in the Higher Education scene is put into action. This post means to indicate the multiple ways in which the whole exercise can go haywire if the past instances are anything to go by. It also dwells on the precautions which can be taken while the State goes about implementing the same.  The past

What will happen to the work we have done as NAAC is revising it's guidelines? This is a standard question from many quarters each time the assessment norms for accreditation are revised. Though the worry is understandable and valid to an extent, it raises concerns of another kind regarding the relationship between accreditation parameters, the institutional readiness and their relevance. The outcome of each such revision, in any system, may be warranted by many causes. It may be a periodic revision which all systems need to undergo time to time. It may also be the outcome of a revision warranted by the systemic changes. The revision may also be the result of corrective measures necessitated by the need to weed out complacency or corruption. As always, all changes may not be exclusively changes for the better!  There has always been the question of what is it that an HEI leader has to do when charged with the responsibility of preparing it for periodic assessments. Ready the insti